The Ethics of Data Collection on the Internet

Introduction 

Firms are required to make strategic choices while collecting consumer data online, where they are uniquely positioned to undercut or respect privacy expectations and consumer interests. The privacy expectations fall under three major domains, which include the supply chain of information, the network of surveillance online and the arm of law enforcement ( Bershidsky, 2018) . The firms may benefit from aggregating and analyzing the consumer data, where they have an associated responsibility of reducing the harm among the consumers and to enact changes where the firms are in the most knowledgeable and dominant position. Historically, the internet research ethics relies on the conceptualization of the ethical issues that involve the use of computer and information technology including the participant knowledge and consent, data privacy, and security ( Hachman, 2015) . Other issues have emerged regarding the ethical use of information on internet platforms including confidentiality, the integrity of data, and intellectual property issues. In the course of evolution of the internet, a debate rages on whether there are new ethical dilemmas related to the concept of ethics of data collection on the internet. This paper shows that the ethical frameworks such as consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics have positively contributed towards how ethical issues in internet research are regarded and evaluated. 

Ethics of Data Collection on the Internet 

Appeals 

Conceptually, the internet ethics research is related to the computer and information ethics, where it is made up of different elements and ethical issues such as participant knowledge and consent, their data privacy, security, and confidentiality. These issues are guided by the ethical framework that guides the actions of human beings including consequentialism, which is the view that normative properties heavily rely on the consequences ( Bershidsky, 2018) . This approach is applicable in different levels to different normative properties especially regarding the collection and use of personal data on the internet. In this case, consequentialists argue that the moral rightness of acts is determined by the ethics of the consequences of the acts. In this case, the use of the personal data on the internet should be carried in such a way that the ethics of the consequences for such an action are ethical or that the motive behind such an act should be one that upholds morality. 

The evolution of the internet into a more social and communication tool and the venue has resulted in the shift in the ethical issues from pure data-driven to the human-centered. On the contrary, the face-to-face analogies are not applicable to online research, which brings about the issue of anonymity of users ( Hachman, 2015) . For example, the concept of the public park has consistently been used as the site where researchers continue to observe others without the ethical controversy, while in online platforms; the ideas of public versus private are much more complex. Most of the scholars, guided by the utilitarianism ethical framework have called for the specificity of internet research ethics with the proposal of new regulatory and professional disciplinary guidance ( Popescu & Baruh, 2013) . This is why the concept of human subjects as research objects is approached with different policies such as regulation and other ethical considerations like personal consent. The process of data collection should also be applied with disciplinary standards that can explore the growing areas of ethical and methodological complexity, which includes personal identifiability, the reputational risk harm and the ownership of personal data ( Bershidsky, 2018) . The shift towards the application of online tools as social and communication platforms has continued to raise issues around the subject or participant recruitment practices, the informed consent models applied, and the protection of different expectations as well as the privacy of information in a world with different forms of diffused and ubiquitous technologies. 

The other appeal is derived from the pathos argument, which responds to the question regarding the feelings that a user may develop when he or she finds out that the webpage they visited has more information than any real person in life has and that this information is being sold to other companies for profit ( Popescu & Baruh, 2013) . This question is a bit complex, bearing in mind that the online platforms lack avenues for reporting and prosecution of the perpetrators, bearing in mind that most of the sites allow for anonymity of the users ( Bershidsky, 2018) . The principles of research ethics may dedicate the need for researchers to ensure that there are adequate provisions of protection of the privacy of the subjects while maintaining high levels of confidentiality of the data collected ( Hachman, 2015) . However, the fact that most of the users of online platforms consent to the user agreement terms and that there are no avenues in which the website developers track the usage of personal information, it will continually be challenging for users to respond to cases of violation of usage of personal data ( Sipior et al., 2004) . Moreover, other users may present as the rightful owners of the accounts, where they may use this information for profitable purposes like improving the streams for advertisement among marketers, which makes it complex to trace and apprehend the violators. 

Research ethics regulations express several concerns regarding the privacy of subjects and the use of personal information regarding the levels of linkability of the data to individuals and the potential harm resulting from the disclosure of personal information ( Martin, 2016) . For instance, when assessing the possible exemptions of certain research from human subjects review, the federal guidelines require oversight in certain circumstances. These circumstances include the fact that information obtained should be recorded in such a way that the human subjects should be identified, directly or through the identifiers linked to the subjects ( Hachman, 2015) . The other circumstance is that the disclosure of the human subjects outside the research scope could have reasonable impacts of placing them at risk or criminal or civil liability. Such a form of exposure may also be damaging to the subject’s financial standing, reputation, and employment. 

The protection of privacy and confidentiality should thus be achieved through a combination of research tactics and practices that include the engagement in data collection under either controlled or anonymous environments ( Martin, 2016) . The data should also be scrubbed to remove personally identifiable information or the application of access restriction as well as other data related securities. Internet research has continually introduced new complications to the longstanding definition and regulatory frameworks that are meant to protect the privacy of subjects ( Bershidsky, 2018) . The best example is where researchers can collect detailed data about individuals from social platforms such as Facebook and process these rich data sets for financial gains. 

Consequently, new data types are often collected in internet research, where they are used in the identification of subjects within a previously-assumed anonymous dataset. The best example is where internet researchers collect the internet protocol (IP) addresses while carrying out online surveys and in the cases of analyzing the transaction logs. The IP addresses are unique identifiers that are assigned to each device connected to the internet. Most of the websites and internet service providers are embedded with the capability of storing activity logs that link the activities with the IP address ( Hachman, 2015) . The ethics of collection of such information is hampered by the fact that the current law does not hold the IP address as personally identifiable information in most of the jurisdictions including the USA. 

Another complication emerges when considering the meaning of private information in the context of Internet-based research. The standard definition of private information has different essential components including the fact that it is the information whose subjects reasonably expect that it is not available in the public domain ( Bershidsky, 2018) . On the other hand, it is conceptualized as the information that may require a particular form of privacy protection ( Martin, 2016) . Researchers who have the interest of collecting or analyzing the online actions of subjects have defended the definition of private information, arguing that the subjects lack reasonable expectations that the online activities are not routinely monitored because all online transactions and interactions are logged by the websites and service providers ( Hachman, 2015) . This implies that the consequentialist thought is relevant in guiding the actions of online users as opposed to the protectionists provided by the law regarding protection of the private information in online platforms. 

The other consideration that may be used to explain the need for ethics of data collection on the internet is the logos part of the argument. The question under consideration stems from the fact that most major corporations are required to have adequate provisions in place to protect the privacy of customers and their information ( Popescu & Baruh, 2013) . The major issue of contention is that with the consent required for the collection and distribution of the said information, one may wonder why the laws and requirements for Internet-based companies are not the same and why they are allowed to continually collect the information without needing getting the continual consent. Responding to this question involves analyzing the complexity in addressing the subject privacy following internet research ( Bershidsky, 2018) . It evident that the privacy of the users is compounded by the fact the rise in the social networking platforms as the main space for information sharing will continue to make private information available in the public domain. 

Users are increasingly sharing more and more personal information on their social platforms such as Facebook, MySpace, and Instagram ( Martin, 2016) . For researchers and business companies, these social media platforms allow for the mining of the information required for study in as much as there is more that can be downloaded without much effort. The fact that much information posted on social media platforms is publicly viewable, it defies logic that such data is not classified as private information ( Hachman, 2015) . This implies that the requirement does not legally bound the researchers who attempt to collect data and analyze the social media postings that they need to treat such data or information as private. This further complicates the consideration that one may understand with certainty the intention of the user when posting an item on the social media platforms. 

Evidence 

Research has shown that all online companies and platforms analyze data in as much as they test theories that depend on the data from individual users. The industry-based research revolves around different aspects such as how users behave online, what they follow or read, and how they dress or eat ( Martin, 2016) . Such forms of research have produced inferences about the tastes and preferences of different social groups, where pervasive testing of products and services that are an integral part of life can be carried out by marketers ( Sipior et al., 2004) . However, the growth of the industry-based big data research will continue to present new risks to the privacy of the individuals and the legal compliance of business organizations ( Bershidsky, 2018) . As business organizations continue to process personal data outside their original context, the individuals may in some cases benefit greatly, while others may be outraged or even be harmed. Research has also shown that soliciting consent from the affected persons are continually becoming impractical ( Popescu & Baruh, 2013) . This implies that organizations may collect data indirectly or based on the identifiers that may not directly match with the contact details of the individual. Moreover, the definition of some non-contextual uses including the retention of data for longer than envisaged for reasons of newly emerged use may be foreseen at the time of collection. 

Most of the relevant agencies for ensuring the integrity of data in the USA and other countries such as Australia are confronted with difficulties in responding to the questions regarding the ethical obligations that researchers have in the course of protection of the privacy of the subjects engaging in the various activities in the public or internet spaces ( Hachman, 2015) . Researchers and their subjects do not have the full comprehension of the jurisdictional issues while processing research, which further harms the ethics of the collection and use of personal data on the internet spaces available ( Bershidsky, 2018) . The growing emphasis of the application of the ethical framework derived from the consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics can contribute in the creation of knowledge on how ethical issues in the internet research can be considered and evaluated. 

The major distinction in the definition of internet research ethics lies in the middle of using the internet as a research tool and using it as a research venue. Consumers have often fallen victims of becoming a captive audience without the functional opt-out mechanisms ( Martin, 2016) . In this regard, it is essential to respond to the questions related to the ethics of a web page that is allowed to collect information on a customer for an undermined amount of time after making the first initial visit ( Hachman, 2015) . Responding to such a question involves analyzing the definition of internet research ethics and creating the line between the usage of the internet as a research tool or a research venue. The distinction between the internet as a tool and as a venue plays out across disciplinary and methodological orientations. 

When used as a tool of research, the internet is enabled by search engines, data aggregation tools, databases, and catalogs ( Popescu & Baruh, 2013) . On the other hand, when used as a venue, the internet is regarded to be embedded with places or locales as conversation applications such as the chat rooms. The other way of conceptualizing the usage of the internet as a tool and as a venue lies in the usage of the concepts of engaged web-based research and the non-intrusive web-based research ( Bershidsky, 2018) . The non-intrusive form of research refers to the techniques of collecting data that may not interfere with the naturally occurring state of the site or cyber community, while the engaged form of analysis reaches out to the site or community and in turn engages the participants of the web source ( Martin, 2016) . The two forms of conceptualization of the internet as a tool and as a venue can help researchers to recognize the need of protection of the rights of human subjects following any form of research and personal data collection, which may, in turn, determine the levels of ethics allowed for a web page. 

Most of the recent collapse of the conceptualization of the internet as a tool and venue can be traced to the current increase in the usage of third-party websites and applications including Facebook and Google and other online survey tools that may require subject participant recruitment, presentation of personal data, and its analysis occurring in the same space ( Popescu & Baruh, 2013) . Most researchers have argued against the terms of use and user license agreement stipulations that are granted in the virtual worlds, where these agreements may be flawed in certain ways as they are determined by the laws and regulations from a single locale ( Martin, 2016) . The lack of non-jurisdictional coordination further hampers the attempts to enforce these regulations. Researchers have frequently used the data aggregation tools, where they scrap data from user profiles or transaction logs and other streams from Twitter accounts on the grounds that they agree to the user terms of service. This even poses more challenges to the data integrity, its dissemination, and use, bearing in mind that the researchers tend to flaw the ethical rules regarding personal information. 

Argument and Counterarguments 

With most of the researchers and review boards across the world lacking the world work without the formal guidance, most of the research ethics boards have developed the guidelines that will help in online research ( Martin, 2016) . These guidelines help researchers while preparing for the REB reviews and the boards developing their reviews. The implementation of these guidelines has led to the decline in the number of violation of personal information and the protection of human subjects following research ( Hachman, 2015) . With corporations developing vast living laboratories for big data research, the ethics following research will continue to be the critical component of design and oversight of these activities. 

The best example is where Facebook developed the internal ethical review process, which was in response to the controversies surrounding the emotional contagion experiment ( Popescu & Baruh, 2013) . In this case, the ethical review leverages the organizational structure of the company, which creates multiple training opportunities and research review checkpoints in the current organizational flow ( Bershidsky, 2018) . Such ethical reviews are considered to be essential and laudable, where they will continue to remain open for improvement. This implies that while the internet companies like Facebook recognize the need for reviewing the ethics of the internal research projects, these efforts may remain largely perfunctory and are meant for easing the public concern and not necessarily being carried out in line with the ethical deliberations that may be required in the academics settings. 

The counterargument here is that internet companies are embracing ethical reviews mostly for the economic gains and to build a sound reputation in the face of its stakeholders ( Sipior et al., 2004) . On the other hand, the companies are embracing the ethical considerations in line with the collection of personal data for research in response to controversies that may harm their reputation. Moreover, internet users will continue to face the harm associated with access to personal information ( Hachman, 2015) . The conceptual gaps that exist in line with the privacy and the definition of personally identifiable information in the context of research will thus continue to be inevitable as they will lead to other gaps where informed consent is required. 

Conclusion 

In the wave of the increased use of the internet, users will be confronted with various ethical issues. This paper has successfully shown that the extant ethical framework comprised of consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics can be used to guide how ethical issues in internet research are considered and evaluated. The major argument here is whether the online companies have put in place measures of ensuring ethics as a framework for responding to the ethical issues in the use of online platforms or as a tool for public relations. In this case, an analysis of most companies shows that the ethical frameworks are used as sideshows to conceal controversies in the eyes of the public as opposed to ensuring the integrity of data usage. 

References 

Bershidsky, L. (2018, April 03). Why Microsoft and Apple don't need to sell your data. Retrieved November 4, 2018, from https://nypost.com/2018/04/03/why-microsoft-and-apple-dont-need-to-sell-your-data/ 

Hachman, M. (2015, October 01). The price of free: How Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and Google sell you to advertisers. Retrieved November 4, 2018, from https://www.pcworld.com/article/2986988/privacy/the-price-of-free-how-apple-facebook-microsoft-and-google-sell-you-to-advertisers.html 

Martin, K. (2016). Data aggregators, consumer data, and responsibility online: Who is tracking consumers online and should they stop?  The Information Society ,  32 (1), 51–63. Retrieved from http://library.neit.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eoah&AN=37562061&site=ehost-live 

Popescu, M., & Baruh, L. (2013). Captive But Mobile: Privacy Concerns and Remedies for the Mobile Environment.  Information Society ,  29 (5), 272–286. https://library.neit.edu:2404/10.1080/01972243.2013.825358 

Sipior, J. C., Ward, B. T., & Rongione, N. M. (2004). Ethics of Collecting and Using Consumer Internet Data.  Information Systems Management ,  21 (1), 58–66. Retrieved from http://library.neit.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=11868797&site=ehost-live 

Will Europe's new web privacy rules also bring global standards of trust? (2018, May 25). Christian Science Monitor . Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A540323181/OVIC?u=warw18036&sid=OVIC&xid=2b0d6ddb